From a previous thread...
That's a good question Thor, so let's talk about the idea of "winning" in Civilization.
A player can theoretically "win" in "Civilization - Call to Power" by stockpiling up a bunch of nukes, telling lies to everybody, then waiting until they all have their guard down, and then nuke every enemy unit off the face of the Earth. "Nice win! You lied to us real good and completely destroyed the Earth! Nice Civilization playing. Great strategy. You should get a five point increase in your ratings for your superior and 'civilized' method."
Why does someone have to "win" in Civilization? I know it is a game, and someone should win, but we kind of take care of that now with the multiple winner at the ...9 turn mark.
See my below yakking on the AC-Multiplayer -- Ladders thread.
Begin quote from Alpha Centauri thread (trying to convince them to go to a rating system similar to CTP Ratings) :
-------------
...
White Elephants - Regarding length of CTP Games - Well, I know of one game that is well over 200 turns right now. I think the only reason a game really "ends" is because players lose interest, or one player gets a substantial lead and it becomes just a long, tedious mop up job to "conquer" the rest of the civilizations.
One of the good points of the rating system is that it actually encourages players to stay in the game, and encourages the game leader "not to destroy" the rest of the nations, but just to stay in the lead (but not by too much) so that the leader's ratings will continue to increase at the ten turn mark and the other players will stay in, in the hopes of gaining the lead themselves, while still gaining ratings points for being ahead of the others in the game. For once the game ends, the ratings no longer change. There is no "bonus" for ending the game, (just as there is no bonus for ending the "real" world )
...
------------- End quote from Alpha Centauri thread.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited December 24, 2000).]
That's a good question Thor, so let's talk about the idea of "winning" in Civilization.
A player can theoretically "win" in "Civilization - Call to Power" by stockpiling up a bunch of nukes, telling lies to everybody, then waiting until they all have their guard down, and then nuke every enemy unit off the face of the Earth. "Nice win! You lied to us real good and completely destroyed the Earth! Nice Civilization playing. Great strategy. You should get a five point increase in your ratings for your superior and 'civilized' method."
Why does someone have to "win" in Civilization? I know it is a game, and someone should win, but we kind of take care of that now with the multiple winner at the ...9 turn mark.
See my below yakking on the AC-Multiplayer -- Ladders thread.
Begin quote from Alpha Centauri thread (trying to convince them to go to a rating system similar to CTP Ratings) :
-------------
...
White Elephants - Regarding length of CTP Games - Well, I know of one game that is well over 200 turns right now. I think the only reason a game really "ends" is because players lose interest, or one player gets a substantial lead and it becomes just a long, tedious mop up job to "conquer" the rest of the civilizations.
One of the good points of the rating system is that it actually encourages players to stay in the game, and encourages the game leader "not to destroy" the rest of the nations, but just to stay in the lead (but not by too much) so that the leader's ratings will continue to increase at the ten turn mark and the other players will stay in, in the hopes of gaining the lead themselves, while still gaining ratings points for being ahead of the others in the game. For once the game ends, the ratings no longer change. There is no "bonus" for ending the game, (just as there is no bonus for ending the "real" world )
...
------------- End quote from Alpha Centauri thread.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited December 24, 2000).]
Comment